Correctly Political: I'm for Caroline! and Other Stentorial Ruminations

Money quotes:

The argument, then, that Caroline should run for election, or that having run for previous elective office is a qualification, is fundamentally ungermane. Officials trained and experienced in the House of Representatives learn both the necessity of immediate response to issues as they arise and then tend to to respond to the raw majoritarianism that rules that House of Congress (appropriately, I should add). But neither of those approaches is supposed to apply to the Senate. Having been a Member of the Lower House is actually closer to a disqualification than a qualification. The Senate is not supposed to be simply a glorified House of Representatives; that's especially true for this particular Senate seat, where neither of the two immediate predecessors, Patrick J. Moynihan and Hillary Rodham Clinton, had ever held elective office before taking that New York Senate seat.

It's as if the quiet life Caroline has lived for the most part since her childhood is a bad thing. Nah uh. It's a good thing. Those are precisely the kinds of lives the Founders and Framers expected and desired prospective Senators to have lived. Does Caroline appear to possess a steady and settled personality? Of course. Does Caroline have a wide view of public issues? Of course. Examine the wide variety of issues involved in the winners of the JFK Library’s "Profiles in Courage" Awards, which she has administered since their inception (trivia: What Obama cabinet pick is on that list?). Is Caroline comfortable in the corridors of power? Of course. She's spent her entire life in and out of those corridors--and up and down those steps, as the photo above of her father's funeral demonstrates.


Much more here:


Correctly Political: I'm for Caroline! and Other Stentorial Ruminations

She has the personality of dining room chair. The monotone delivery isn't terribly rallying, on her best day. Oh--and she's rich, AND she's got access to people who are even richer. Her Christmas/Chanukah card list must read like millions in potential donations to her favorite causes...and perhaps, party.

If the people of NY want that package, though, it's up to them. I shake my head in disbelief.

The essay may as well have been entitled "There really IS a pony in there, somewhere!"

I have to laugh at your complaint about her personality. You may well be correct. But that's the personality United States Senators are SUPPOSED to have.

I realize my opinion is worth a warm bucket of spit.

I like Senators with personality. John Kerry actually had to spend money this election cycle (still won handily, but he had to spend) because his opponent was a goofy guy who had a surprisingly commanding persona despite zero experience and diametrically opposed views. Her uncle Ted is a huge personality--a riot at a St. Patrick's Day breakfast or a rally. Paul Wellstone could bring tears to people's eyes. Tom Harkin is another barn-burner. Hillary was rather staid, but she looks like a can-can dancer compared to Caroline.

I see her selection as fraught with peril. She does have a donor base, but can she deliver the goods?

But again--not up to me.

MADem:

--but really, they can't all be that way. It's supposed to be a deliberative body. Having Kerry as one of our Senators with Ted as the other is about right.

And I just don't see the peril. At worst she's a two-hear caretaker for the seat. If she's good and she likes it, that seat is secure for the next 18 years or so.

I mean, really...Jimmy Carter losing to Reagan; the Newt Gingrich Congress--we always seem to find an opportunity to sing the "Didn't We Almost Have It All" refrain.

I hope I'm wrong, but if there's a bit of overreaching and hubris by the party in power, or one-party rule in DC doesn't produce jobs, job, and more jobs, an improved economy, and social programs that reach out to real people with real need, then we may see a snapback/backlash. The GOP could very well turn into a bunch of "America Firsters" who bellow "They're taking our JERBS!" (apologies to South Park) and that might resonate with angry people who are not being served.

Because of the unique nature of the voter base in NY, she'd be a ripe target to pick off in a disaffected environment. Once she has the seat, she's probably going to want to keep it--Harry Reid apparently wants that, at any rate, and the party would probably be reluctant to challenge her at the primary level, but she hasn't earned the respect of the rural voters yet, hasn't ingratiated herself at the state party level, and they may not work terribly hard for her if/when she runs in two years (I would not object so much if she just wanted to be a caretaker, but she's not saying that--I think she's looking for a new and semi-permanent hobby, perhaps in substitution for a marriage that's flagging a bit?).

Like I said, not up to me. I'm just "opining" as that Bigheaded Bastard says. I always thought NY state had a slightly deeper pool of talent than this potential candidate displays. I'm sure she's nice, and while she's qualified in the sense that she's over thirty and a US citizen, I don't think she's the cream of the NY crop, and I think the state could do better. On the bright side, she's come out, unequivocally, for gay marriage, so she's a bit to the left of most Democrats in the Senate on that one issue (of course, that might be a problem for her upstate...).

What amazes me is that some are touting her for the Presidency in 2016. Then again, I shouldn't be so amazed I guess. A state senator gave a speech at Kerry's nominating convention, and wound up as President-Elect. I sometimes wonder if the voters have ANYTHING to do with it all all....

Seems to me the NY Dem talent pool is structurally weak. Why do you think Charlie Rangel had to have Hillary parachute in to hold the seat? Those Metroplitan-area Members of the House look competitive on paper, but that rarely translates into statewide appeal.

If you read my whole article, you'll see that over the last 50 years, New York has had a "Pothole" seat and a "Star" seat. Javits, D'Amato and Schumer in the Pothole seat; RFK, James Buckley and Hillary in the Star seat. Caroline is the only Star the NY Dems have right now.

Touting her for the WH already is downright silly, especially for 2016. Everyone knows that's Sarah Palin's election to losE

(just kidding)

As for CK heading to the WH, I think it's silly, too--but I was not kidding, I'm afraid:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Kennedy_2016.html

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/12/16/caroline-kennedy-for-president-in-2016/

They've even come up with posters.

John Kerry spent relatively little money running for re-election. John Kerry moved about $9 million to his Senate account - and then gave $1 million to the DSCC. At the end of October he had more than $4 million left. That means he spent about $4 to $5 million over both the general election and the primary election. He won both with landslides. Now, in 2006, HRC spent $34 million. (http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/09/cq_2388.html?scp=4&sq=Hillary%20Clinton%20Senate%202006%20campaign%20spending&st=cse) Her GOP opponent, a not well known mayor of Yonkers, was a complete flake. You seem to think Kerry's opponent had some positive characteristics - which no one said of Clinton's opponent - so tell me why Kerry was able to beat to beat a better opponent with just $5 million (maximum) to the $34 million Clinton spent.

Not to mention that Kerry won the Presidential nomination in 2004, starting by winning Iowa. He did this with little media support and so little party support that he needed to mortgage his house to get money. I know you don't like him - but I saw 2 absolutely fantastic speeches where he got standing ovation after standing ovation (the dissent and real security speeches at Fanuel hall in April and September 2006) Not to mention, his speech at this year's convention was a barn burner that energized the crowd. The NYT called it the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention in 2 decades (back to Cuomo and Jackson). http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/kerry-hits-it-home/?scp=1&sq=Kerry%202008%20convention%20speech&st=cse Nor were they alone in praising Kerry - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/the-kerry-surprise/?scp=2&sq=Kerry%202008%20convention%20speech&st=cse I also saw the rally in Hyannis the day before the election - Kerry had the crowd in the palm of his hand. http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/entry/barnstable_democratic_town_committee_election_eve_rally_video/

In addition, are you serious about this. I think your description of Jeff Beatty as "a goofy guy who had a surprisingly commanding persona despite zero experience and diametrically opposed views." is not what I saw. From the polling data, the more people saw him the lower he polled and the higher his negatives went. Even the Republicans disliked him - he was not their preferred candidate. (In fact Beatty lost to Delahunt by a similarly huge margin in 2006 - Kerry's margin was slightly higher resulting in Kerry winning the bet the two made in Hyannis the day before the election.) It's kind of hard to say someone has a "commanding persona when they lose two elections by about 35 points!

If you mean his primary opponent, whose experience was as a trial lawyer who defended mostly drunk drivers, you have to explain why he lost very badly after running full time for around 2 years, but was unable to raise much money or keep a campaign manager. Not to mention he thought it was a good idea to go further than Bush himself was willing to do - repeating SBVT smears. I think he was run off Daily Kos for doing so - I know he got many troll ratings but don't know if he just left or was told to go away.

I just know what I see on TV, and six years ago, I didn't see a single fucking "Kerry 4 Senate" commercial. This time around, I saw DOZENS. See, last time he only had a write-in opponent and some libertarian clown. This time, he actually had a competitor, such as he was.

JB should have had his clocked cleaned in the debate that no one watched on NECN. He didn't. He actually landed a few blows.

So yes, I AM serious about this. And no, I don't mean his primary opponent, I mean his GOP opponent.

Kerry wasn't shitting his drawers, but he threw a little money around to lock down his position. A lot more dough than he threw around six years prior, that's for DAMNED sure.

Sheesh.

Kerry spent around $5 million, Hillary Clinton spent $34 million. Her opponent was far less a threat. Why did she spend about 7 times as much? Part of the money Kerry spent on ads in the primary was done because there were few competitive races and many people did not know he had an opponent. To put the spending in context, Kennedy in 2006 did not have a primary challenge, but spent slightly over $7 million - against a hapless opponent. ( http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/partyfinal2006/senpty.pdf This looks unofficial, but it was where the NYT link in my earlier post takes you if you click "chart") Kerry spent LESS than Kennedy, who spent only one fifth of what Clinton did, but I guess you missed Kennedy's ads. (I can't find Kerry's 2002 FEC numbers.) I didn't miss HRC's incessant 2006 ads because I get NYC tv.

You say Beatty got in a few blows - the fact is that he went for the Palin approach and often ignored the questions to simply attack the Senator, who responded well on every single question. None of the attacks gained traction and Kerry, on the spot, calmly and definitively debunked a huge number of dishonest charges. Kerry sinking to Beatty's level would have been less effective than what he did - answering the questions and making a case for himself. When you are over 30 points ahead and and one of the top 12 Senators, attacking your opponent is really not needed and can be counterproductive. Beatty's negatives increased after the debates, while his positives stayed about the same. He looked and sounded completely unlikable. He ended up getting just 30.9% of the vote. Given that % and the % he got against Delahunt, he is hardly "commanding".

If Kerry would have had no debates with Beatty and run no ad you would be the first to post that he thought he was entitled to run. As to your thought that Kerry felt even the least bit threatened - the experts quoted in this Boston Globe article disagreed. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/kerry_easily_defeats_beatty_to_win_a_5th_term/

It also meant that Beatty did not make a case for himself. What the debate showed was as the Patriot Ledger said when they endorsed Kerry:
"Kerry’s Republican opponent this year, Jeff Beatty, takes a back seat to no one in his understanding of terrorist threats and homeland security. But Beatty has displayed an alarming lack of understanding, knowledge or interest in nearly every other issue from education to energy to the needs of the fishing industry." http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x409583935/OUR-OPINION-Kerry-for-Senate-Focused-on-the-now

I really fail to see what was "commanding" about a candidate who reacted to a mild barb from Kerry's spokesperson referencing the New York Yankees as the New Jersey born and bred Beatty's favorite team by launching an attack that the Onion would have thought over the top. http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/1486/beatty-camp-reacts-yankees-charge-accuses-kerry-smears He was also wrong on his facts - as Kerry pointed out in the debate - The treasury secretary (Paulson) bailed out AIG, not the Congress - it was before the big $700 million bailout and neither Kerry had any AIG at the time - THK had some earlier on the snapshot Senate disclosure form. Kerry, not Beatty, was commanding in explaining that - as Beatty mumbled in the background.

Last time around, Kerry had no competition, save a write-in antiwar Dem, and a Libertarian. He didn't spend a cent.

This time around, he did have competition, albeit weak competition. He spent money and was forced to debate. I didn't suggest that his opponent had a prayer of winning, ever--yet you approach me as though I am an advocate for the guy, or something. I'm simply pointing out a few truths, and you're getting your drawers in a knot over it.

I suggest you rewatch the NECN debate. The reason the GOP opponent got thirty percent instead of NADA is because he landed a few blows. He also went on every local program that would have him.

The fact remains, the GOP candidate DID garner a few votes on election day, and some of those votes were of the "protest" variety in addition to the GOP straight ticket voters. Completely dismissing the fact that Kerry was challenged (for a change) is fucking STUPID. Parties wanting to challenge the status quo start out by throwing unsuccessful Davids against entrenched Goliaths to worry and harass. Don't forget, we used to have GOP Senators in MA, once upon a time. With complacency, it could happen again.

Please don't tell me what you think I'd be "the first" to say. That's a crappy way of arguing your points, by putting unspoken words in the mouths of others.

Have a nice day.

1) Kennedy debated his lame opponent too ( http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/10/11/energy_immigration_dominate_kennedy_chase_debate/). It is actually rare for a candidate to refuse to debate his major party opponent.

2) Kennedy spent more money and got only 3 percent more of the vote (69% vs 66%. Now, YOU said that Beatty was "commanding", no one said that of Chase.

I did watch the NECN debate - I also saw that after it, Beatty did LESS well in the polls - and some of what he lost went to a third party candidate. I assume there WERE some protest votes thrown in - but there can't have been many - Kerry only did 3% less than Kennedy - though some MA PUMAs at least made a lot of noise. But, given that Kennedy has ALWAYS been more popular in MA than Kerry, the numbers don't back up your desired conclusion.

I, not you, pointed out that Kerry had a primary challenger. I did not deny that he was challenged - I do deny that he ever was the leats concerned. The facts are as said in the Boston Globe - his race was never in doubt - it was a sure thing. Kerry was never on any list that showed him in danger - maybe because he was polling double digits ahead.

I would not have the intellectual dishonesty to say that the reason Clinton spent 7 times as much money against Spenser, who was as week a candidate as you can get - prone to contradicting his own web site when giving opinions was because she was scared of losing her Senate race. Or that the reason she debated him was because she was scared of him as a challenger. She also got virtually the same percent of the votes that Kerry got - 67% of the vote. (Gee not nada) (Schumer had received 72% and Spitzer got a higher % too - so there is no case to be made that this was anything other than a very similar result - for about $30 million less.)

Giuliani's internal polls may have suggested he'd get humiliated...by a WOMAN!!!...so he ended up using the cancer excuse. Lazio got bully-ish with her, and that was his undoing. Her second run was, of course, different. But still--it's apples and oranges. Kerry wasn't looking at an upcoming Presidential run this time, like Clinton was when she spent big money. He was just running for his seat, that's all.

One more time--you're OBSESSING on a word. I am not suggesting that JB is a "commmanding person." I never fucking said that. Yet you persist in repeating it, as though that was my meaning. Go back and read what I wrote, please, and stop behaving like a dog with a bone. I was speaking of JB's performance in the NECN debate that no one watched. He had a command of his facts and he pulled a few Barney Frank retorts on Kerry (of the "Pardon me for speaking while you were interrupting me" sort) that played well on TV.

That's all I'm saying. I'm saying that the guy didn't suck as much as expected. The next guy may suck even less, and the next one, less still. THAT's my point. It's how the Democrats took GOP seats in formerly red states, after all. Thinking the game can't be played in reverse is a very stupid view, and hubris laden, to boot. It's also how elections are lost--ask Newt Gingrich.

I don't get why you want to beat this to death. It's as if you're being deliberately obtuse as to my meaning.

When she ran against Spenser .... for re-election. You also can't claim I wasn't talking of 2006 - because I gave you two links dealing with Clinton in 2006. I am not criticizing Clinton for spending $34 million, but it does counter your claim that it showed weakness that Kerry had to spend $5 million for re-election, when Kennedy spent $7 million and HRC $34 million on similar races.

I did see that NECN debate, where Beatty, not Kerry spent the first half interrupting - in the second half Kerry contradicted him on a lie - if it played so well, why did his numbers go down. As to a command of the facts - read the Patriot Ledger comment - he was completely at sea on anything concerning economics, finance, health care, etc. Kerry killed him on his lame answer of how the town and cities would do without the money they get from the income tax. He did capture the rudeness of Frank, but completely lacked the humorous side that can make Frank charming. Beatty merely looked rude and weird. Frankly, had everyone seen that debate - Beatty likely would have been lower and the libertarian who was not there would have been higher.

Your point on the fact that we can lose a blue stay with a bad candidate is true, but it clearly does not apply to Senator Kerry. He was strong enough that he was the 2004 nominee of the party. The strongest candidate that the Republicans have had in the last 25 years actually did run against Kerry and lost by a significant margin - and that was when Weld was at his peak. The Republicans likely will have an easier time getting Kennedy's seat when he steps down - though it is unlikely as there are many strong Democrats and no one interesting on the Republican side.

It is not me being obtuse, it is you blinded by hatred.

1) He spent LESS than Kennedy did in 2006 for his re-election and way less than HRC on similarly lopsided races - and they all ended up with landslide results.

2) When looking for a "personality less" politician there are many reasonable examples - Kerry is not one of them. I noticed you didn't comment on the reviews of Kerry's self written speech. If you watched the whole evening on CSPAN, you would have seen that he gave the barnburner of the night - and the people at the convention reacted to it. unlike many other speakers, he was applauded louder after the speech compared to before. (It is also strange to say of a man who first became prominent because of his eloquent speech.)

I'm not going to argue this further - because it should be clear to anyone reading the exchange that you - for no obvious reason - decided to throw in an attack an Kerry. But, everything you said was WRONG.

In thinking about it - there was a link between Senator Kerry and the subject in this thread. The reason for your attack on Caroline Kennedy is because she, along with her uncle and Kerry all endorsed Obama, which kept her big state victories low enough that HRC did not clinch the nomination on superTuesday.

running for Prez this last time. So your money argument doesn't follow.

I now remember why I tired of this place. It's impossible to have a fucking discussion. Too many drama kings and queens, and way too many people up on high horses getting "offended." They ought to rename this place "Junior High School Underground" because there's way too much whining, carping and crying, and damned little political discussion.

I am not "attacking" Kerry. Where you get that, I have no idea. I voted for the guy. Christ.

I think Caroline Kennedy is not the best candidate for the Senate seat, but I acknowledge that she will probably get it. I think she has the personality of a dining room chair and she's a socialite-dabbler. That's my opinion and I have a right to it. I am not from NY so it's not my Senator we're talking about, anyway. Feel free to disagree, but don't get all whiney and tell me I am WRONG and a HATER because I don't follow your thinking or agree with your halfassed and angry OPINIONS.

I'm also tired of bullshit expressions that some, apparently, can push an F key to pull up. "Blinded by hatred?" You tell me who the fuck, precisely, I am busy "hating"--PLEASE. I really want to know who I'm carrying around all these buckets of HATE for.

What I HATE, I must say, if I must dig up a bucket of hate to PLEASE you, is people who get so dumbshit-partisan that they run around with a sword and shield, beating up on anyone who wants to have an intellectual discussion of the issues from the perspective of all sides, even if they don't necessarily endorse the sides they're discussing. It's what mature adults do, but apparently, adult conduct is hen's teeth here.

You stew in your own juice, now.

Come one, pipe up. Put up, or shut up. Better still, grow up.

it is apparent to anyone who is "stewing their own juices" here.

But... if HRC had to spend big money running in 2006 because she intended to run for President in 2008, why didn't Kerry in 2002? Kerry's libertarian opponent couldn't have been that much weaker than Spencer.

Now, I agree 100% with you that a charismatic well spoken candidate can pull off an upset or cause the incumbent to have to spend a larger amount of money than otherwise. It is just that your example is bad. Beatty was NOT a strong opponent and Kerry did not have to spend a lot of money compared to any of his peers.

One MORE time, since you haven't understood me to this point--I never believed Beatty was a STRONG candidate. He simply was able to catch a whiff of attention, a whiff more than expected, too. That was my only point and you insist on making more of it than I either said or meant.

But you're refusing to see what I'm actually saying, why I have no idea.

reacted to her visits up there. She did a lot of campaigning for downticket candidates in Upstate. They also saw Lowrey was not polling well against RudyG. So, Clinton was offered the slot.

Caroline, whom I'm kind of rooting for, has not done any work for the state party, has not contributed money to the state party, hasn't gone west of Westchester for candidates and has only voted in half the elections since registering in 1988. That stings.

HRC also had the Seal of Approval of the incumbent in the position. He held her hand, showed her off, and showed her around.

did heartily endorse HRC.

But, again, folks don't know all the stuff HRC did as first lady to help NYS Dems. Even before the senate came up.

Mookie:

Caroline has others. It's true she can't be endorsed by Pat Moynihan, but on the other hand, Caroline is no triangulator.

I don't think a lot of people know how progressive Caroline is. Damn, she gave the JFK Library's "Courage" award to the Mississipi Sec. of State who fought the legislature for paper ballots. She gave it Hilda Solis back when she was state senator for her law on disparate impact of pollution on low-income areas.